This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence

Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk

Markovina J, Stewart-Knox B, Rankin A, Gibney M, Almeida MD, Fischer A,

Kuznesof S, Poinhos R, Panzone L, Frewer LJ. Validity and Reliability of Food

Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Quality and Preference

2015, 45, 26-32.

Copyright:

©2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

DOI link to article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.05.002

Date deposited:

05/10/2015

Embargo release date:

14 May 2016

1

Validity and Reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries

J. Markovina, B. Stewart-Knox, A. Rankin, M. Gibney, M.D. Almeida, A. Fischer, S. Kuznesof, R.

Poinhos, L. Panzone, L.J. Frewer

ABSTRACT

This analysis has been conducted to explore the validity and reliability of the Food Choice

Questionnaire (FCQ) across 9 European countries. Variation in the factor structure and the

perceived importance of food choice motives have been compared cross-nationally.

Volunteers (N=9381) were recruited from an existing panel of a social research agency to take

part in the Food4Me survey in Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the

Netherlands, the UK and Norway. The survey was administered on-line. Configural, metric

and scalar invariance fell within acceptable limits and were consistent across the 9 countries.

All reliability parameters were above acceptable levels. Factor analysis confirmed that all

items loaded onto the same 9 factors established by Steptoe and colleagues (1995). There was

highly significant agreement in the relative importance of food choice factors between

countries. Price was ranked as most important food choice factor in five countries (Spain,

Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands), sensory appeal was ranked first for three

countries (Norway, Germany and the UK) while natural content was ranked as the most

important factor in Poland. Familiarity and ethical concern were consistently ranked as least

important in all countries. These data suggest that the FCQ is a suitable tool for exploring

food choice motives across different European populations. Differences in relative importance

of factors within countries may need to be taken into account in dietary health intervention

and food product development.

Key words: Food choice questionnaire; FCQ; survey; reliability; validity; Food4Me.

2

1. Introduction

Understanding food choice motives is needed to plan public policies aimed at improving

dietary health and wellbeing, as well as informing food product innovation and food

marketing. In increasingly globalised markets and economies, it is also important to

understand variations in food choice motives across different countries and cultures. Country

and/or culture-specific differences in food choice motives can be used to inform intervention

to change food related behaviours in different populations. The Food Choice Questionnaire

(FCQ) was originally developed and tested in the United Kingdom (UK) by Steptoe and

colleagues in 1995 where it has been used extensively to assess food choice motives. In its

original form, the FCQ comprises 36 items designed to assess underlying motives for food

choice on 9 dimensions: health; mood; convenience; sensory appeal; natural content; price;

weight control; familiarity; and, ethical concern. Among the goals of previous research has

been to determine if the FCQ is cross-culturally reliable and valid. One of the first cross-

cultural studies of food choice motives (Prescott et al., 2002) compared responses in Japan,

Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Since then, the FCQ has been compared in Canada,

Belgium and Italy (Eertmans et al. 2006) and in Belgium, Hungary, Romania and the Filipines

(Januszewska et al. 2011). The FCQ has also been applied in South America (e.g. Ares and

Gambaro, 2007), North America (e.g. Pula et al, 2014) and certain countries in Europe

(Honkanen and Frewer, 2009; Fotopoulos et al, 2009; Milošević et al, 2012; Pieniak et al,

2013).

Some studies have used modified versions of the FCQ adapted to their research aims, local

population and language. Ares and Gambaro (2007) applied a modified 22-item version of the

FCQ in Uruguay. Fotopoulos et al (2009) explored the possibility of using an ad-hoc short

version (excluding the ‘ethical concern’ factor) of the FCQ with respondents in Greece.

Honkanen and Frewer (2009) used a modified FCQ with Russian respondents, which included

3

extra items on animal welfare, political values and religious items. More recently, a large pan-

European survey of 4828 respondents in 6 European countries (Belgium, France, Italy,

Norway, Poland and Spain) conducted by Pieniak et al (2013) excluded the mood factor.

Table 1 summarises details of previous studies that have used the FCQ.

Insert Table 1

For the purpose of this study, the FCQ was administered as a part of the Food4Me Pan

European Survey investigating public attitudes to personalised nutrition. This survey appears

the largest (N=9381) and most extensive, having been conducted across 9 European states.

Some of the countries (Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal) included have not been a

part of any previous studies of food choice motives which adds further value to results. The

aim of this study, therefore, has been to understand food choice motives across the different

European countries. The objectives have been threefold: firstly, to explore the cross-cultural

validity and reliability of the Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries; secondly,

to determine any variation in the factor structure across different countries; and, thirdly, to

compare the perceived importance of food choice motives across different countries.

2. Method

Sampling and Procedure

Ethical approval for research procedures was granted by the lead academic institutions. Data

were collected in February and March 2013, for a full account of which please refer to

Poínhos et al., (2014). The questionnaire, which was developed in English, was translated into

the various languages by each partner centre. These translations were then back-translated

4

into English, then reviewed and compared with the original by 2 reviewers acting

independently of one another. Queries arising from this process were then discussed by these

adjudicators and referred back to the translating team to ensure 'meaning' was being

appropriately conveyed. Where appropriate, changes were made to the translation. Potential

volunteers were drawn from an existing panel of a social research agency (GfK-NOP).

Nationally representative samples (n=1000 per country) were drawn using quotas for age-

group (18-29, 30-39, 40-54, 55-65 years), gender and highest level of education completed

aggregated from the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)(ISCED 0-2,

ISCED 3-4, ISCED 5-6) and region. Because of low penetration in the 55-65 years old age

category in Ireland, an additional panel were recruited through another research agency

(Toluna). A total of 29,450 individuals were contacted and the overall response rate was

31.9%. The resultant sample comprised 9381 participants from 9 EU countries (Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK and Norway). Respondents

were quota sampled to be nationally representative for each country, on sex, age (18-29, 30-

39, 40-54, 55-65 years) and education level (highest level of education completed based on

International Standard Classification of Education levels ISCED 0-2, ISCED 3-4, ISCED 5-

6). Sample characteristics are summarised by country in Table 2. Data were collected in

February and March 2013 using on-line survey methodology. A participant information sheet

was displayed and participants provided informed consent prior to completing the

questionnaire.

Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ)

The Food Choice Questionnaire (Steptoe et al. 1995) contained 36 statements each preceded

by “It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day”. A full list of items can be seen

in Table 4. Although the original scale was scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =

5

‘Not at all important’ to 4 = ‘Very important’, more recent studies have used either a 7-point

(Dowd & Burke, 2013; Pieniak et al. 2009) or 5-point scale (Milošević et al. 2012). As

responses to the other scales included within the questionnaire were on a 5-point Likert scale,

the FCQ was adapted to obtain responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘Not at

all important’ to 5 = ‘Extremely important’.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,

(Version 21.0; SPSS UK Ltd; Chersey, UK), and MPlus (Version 7.3). Multi-Group

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA) (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998) was employed

to test for metric and scalar measurement invariance across samples. Strict measurement

invariance was alleviated as necessary to ensure that constructs were measured in an

equivalent way in all countries. In the final stage, to examine cross-cultural differences,

configural, metric and scalar invariances were interpreted as indicative of differences between

countries. Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistics (Satorra & Bentler, 1988; 1994) were used to

accommodate non-normal distributions of the scores on a number of items. To allow for

potential cross-factor loadings, the 9 food choice motives (Health, Mood, Convenience,

Sensory Appeal, Natural Content, Price, Weight Control, Familiarity, and Ethical concern)

were analysed in one combined Multi-Group MG-CFA. In a step-wise process, configural,

metric and scalar measurement invariance (Steenkamp & Ter Hofstede, 2002; Steenkamp &

Baumgartner, 1998) was tested using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard

errors (MLR). Modifications (e.g. relaxing the equalities on country specific factor-loadings

or intercepts) were added to the model, based on large modification indices until model fit

indices were acceptable. Model fit indices presented include: Chi-square (χ2); Degrees of

Freedom (df); Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); the Standardized Root

6

Mean square Residual (SRMR); the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI); and, the Comparative Fit

Index (CFI). Values <0.07 for RMSEA and <0.08 SRMR and >0.95 for TLI and CFI suggest

an acceptable model fit (Hair et al. 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Internal consistency of the

FCQ scale and food choice factors was assessed by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients

for the entire sample and by each country. Differences in the rank order of the mean

importance ratings of factors between countries were tested using the non-parametric

Kendall’s coefficient of concordance test.

Insert table 2 here

3. Results

Measurement invariance of the FCQ

Multi group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998) was

used to verify the original 9-factor structure of the FCQ proposed by Steptoe et al (1995).

Goodness-of-fit parameters MG-CFA for the total sample (N=9381) are shown in Table 3. All

the indicators for configural invariance fell within acceptable limits implying consistent

measurement of constructs across all 9 countries. Goodness-of-fit indicators indicated that

metric invariance was also consistent across countries. Results of multi-group CFA indicated

also scalar invariance of measurement on the total sample of 9 countries.

Insert table 3 here

Construct validity and reliability of the FCQ

Standardised factor loadings and internal consistency coefficients for the entire sample are

shown in Table 4. The factor loadings were statistically significant with values in the range

from 0.541 to 0.923. Only three items loaded below the 0.6 mark: “helps me control my

7

weight” (0.541); “tastes good” (0.561); and, “comes from a country I approve of politically”

(0.584). No items had factor loadings below 0.4, therefore, all 36 items were considered in

the interpretation of factors. Intercorrelations between factors are shown in Table 5 (total

sample data). All correlations were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Cronbach alpha

values ranged from 0.781 for the familiarity factor to 0.918 for the natural content factor

(health=0.901; mood=0.897; convenience=0.886; sensory appeal=0.821; natural

content=0.918; price=0.838; weight control=0.905; familiarity=0.781; and, ethical

concern=0.808). All reliability parameters were above acceptable levels (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 6 shows reliability of food choice factors by country. Reliability estimates for all factors

(except for the ethical concern factor in Greece with a value of 0.65), showed values within

the acceptable range from 0.7 to 0.9.

Insert tables 4, 5 and 6 here

Relative importance of food choice motives

Taking the whole sample (N=9381) price, sensory appeal and natural content were ranked as

most important. The health factor was ranked as 4th, followed by convenience, mood and

weight control. Least important were the factors of ethical concern and familiarity. Kendall’s

coefficient of concordance indicated highly significant agreement in the relative importance

of food choice factors between countries (Kendall’s W=0.885; df=8; p<0.01). The relative

importance (mean and standard deviation) of items on each food choice factor are shown on

Table 7. Based on these ratings, Table 8 shows rank order of food choice factors for each

country in order from the most important to least important. Mean ranks of food choice

factors across 9 countries are shown in Table 9. Results show that the price factor was ranked

8

as most important in five countries (Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands),

sensory appeal factor came first for three countries (Norway, Germany and the UK) while

natural content was ranked as the most important factor in Poland. Familiarity and ethical

concern were consistently ranked as least important in all countries.

Insert tables 7, 8 and 9 here

4. Discussion

Among the objectives of this study has been to determine the validity and reliability of the

Food Choice Questionnaire across 9 European countries (Norway, Germany, Spain, Greece,

Poland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal) (N=9381). Internal

consistency coefficients of reliability were high in the total sample and within all countries.

Reliability indicators also appeared higher than those reported in previous research

(Januszewska et al, 2011; Pieniak et al, 2009; Eertmans et al 2006). The larger sample size

employed in our study compared to sample sizes in previous surveys, however, may go some

way toward explaining any apparent disparities in reliability and consistency. It is also

possible that on-line, web-based administration of the survey might have influenced the

results. Previous studies (Pula et al. 2014; Pieniak et al. 2013) that have also been

administered on-line as a part of larger studies, however, have not reported any bias related to

web-based interviewing. That indicators of configural, metric and scalar invariance were

satisfactory, suggests that food choice constructs had similar meaning for respondents from

different countries and that any differences found in subsequent analyses have probably not

been influenced by cultural or country-specific factors. Metric and scalar invariance could

also imply that respondents in all countries understood the measurement scale similarly.

A second objective of this analysis has been to determine any variation in the factor

structure across different countries. Factor analysis confirmed that all items loaded onto the

9

same 9 factors already established by Steptoe et al (1995). These results also agree with those

of Januszewska et al (2011) who found the 9-factor structure of the FCQ to be invariant

across four countries (Belgium, Hungary, Romania and Philippines). Previous studies that

have used the FCQ on cross-national samples, however, have not always found the 9-factor

structure (Steptoe et al., 1995) or indeed, any consistent factor structure across different

countries. For example, Eertmans et al (2006) found differences in construct connotations

between urban populations residing in Belgium, Italy and Canada. Health and natural content

were included in the same single factor in all three countries and there were cross-loadings for

several items in all three samples (Eertmans et al., 2006). A study by Milošević et al (2012)

conducted in 6 Western Balkan countries (Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia

and Bosnia-Herzegovina), similarly, found that an 8-factor structure best described the FCQ,

with health and natural content loading onto one factor in all countries included in the sample.

The original 9-factor structure was also not confirmed in the study of Fotopoulos et al (2009)

in Greece, where the ethical concern factor was excluded owing to low reliability. More

recently, Pula et al (2014) failed to confirm a 9-factor structure in a sample of respondents in

the United States They found an 8-factor structure on the basis of which excluded the weight

control factor and modified the ethical concern factor to reflect environmental issues (Pula et

al., 2014). We observed relatively high intercorrelations between health and mood (0.797),

health and natural content (0.668) and between natural content and ethical concern (0.649).

Such intercorrelations between factors (higher than 0.6, but below the 0.8 mark) could

indicate a problem of multi-collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Similar intercorrelations

were found in the Pan European study conducted by Pieniak et al. (2009). High composite

reliability (>0.80) and large sample size (N=9381) in this current study, however, should have

protected against effects of multi-collinearity (Grewal, Cote & Baumgartner, 2004). High

intercorrelations observed in our sample could also point to how the respondents’ understood

10

certain constructs. Health appears related to the perceived natural content of the food and

associated with mood. Ethical concern may also be related to the natural content of the foods.

A third objective of this analysis was to compare the perceived relative importance of food

choice motives within and across different countries. There was a high level of agreement

across countries in the rankings of importance of food choice factors. Consistent with

previous studies (Prescott et al., 2002; Januszewska et al., 2011), price sensory appeal and

natural content were consistently ranked as the most important food choice factors (Table 8).

More surprising was that the health factor was ranked relatively low (4th

). This could be

explained by the high intercorrelation with the natural content factor which may indicate that

respondents do not differentiate between these two constructs. That ethical concern and

familiarity were consistently ranked lowest is also in accordance with previous studies

(Prescott et al., 2002; Januszewska et al., 2011). Familiarity was ranked as the least important

factor in Taiwan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Belgium, Hungary, Romania and Filipines.

Japanese people appeared different, however, in that they ranked ethical concern highly

(Prescott et al., 2002).

Of the nine European countries that we surveyed, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and the

Netherlands, ranked price the most important motive for food choice. This could reflect

differing priorities among the public residing in what could be considered the relatively

weaker European economies. Figures just prior to the time of sampling indicated that Greece

had a recession of 4.4 percent of GDP, Portugal (3.3%), Italy (1.3%) and Spain (1%) (Pop,

2012). Sensory appeal, in contrast, was ranked first in what could be assumed to be those

countries with relatively stronger economies. That Poland was the only Eastern European

country surveyed may explain it uniqueness in selecting natural content as the most important

motive for food choice. Only one previous study has considered some of the European

countries included in the present analysis. Pieniak Perez-Cueto & Verbeke (2013) also

11

investigated responses to the FCQ in Poland, Spain and Norway as part of a pan-European

survey. They researched associations between traditional food consumption and food choice

motives but did not make comparison between countries. Their study used a modified version

of the FCQ, which makes comparison with the results of this study difficult.

One of the potential limitations of this study is that the Food Choice Questionnaire was

administered as a part of a larger research study about personalised nutrition. The context of

the larger research project might have influenced attitudes in a way that would not have been

present if the food choice motives were tested independently. That previous studies have also

used the FCQ in studies of a variety of outcomes and produced similar findings, however,

suggests that any influence of other survey items is likely to have been minimal.

For the purpose of this study, participants were recruited from existing consumer panels who

agreed to take part in future studies. The response rate was 31.9% which although lower than

some other survey data collection methods, is typical for web-based social research (Manfreda

et al., 2008) the limitations of such a recruitment procedure, however, may be that given the

volunteers consisted of those more highly motivated to take part in a health study and

although representative of the on-line community, they might not have been entirely

representative of the general population. Two previous studies, Pula et al (2014) and Pieniak

et al (2013), also employed web-based methods. Whereas Pula et al (2014) reported that age,

gender and education fell into the range of general population of the USA, the sample

employed by Pieniak et al (2013), was slightly skewed toward those who were younger and

had spent longer in education. A further strength of our study is that quotas were sampled to

be representative of the on-line communicates in the countries surveyed (Poínhos et al.,

2014).

12

5. Conclusion

This study appears to be the first pan-European study of food choice motives across 9

European countries. The degree to which we can draw conclusions is strengthened by the

large sample size. Whereas some other studies (Pula et al., 2014; Pieniak et al., 2013;

Honkanen and Frewer, 2009; Ares and Gambaro, 2007) have used modified versions of the

FCQ, this study has used the original 36-item FCQ. Differences in outcomes of studies

validating the FCQ, therefore, could be accounted for by differences in versions of the

questionnaire that were used. Based on the results of this validation study, therefore, it is

recommended that future research into food motives in European populations use the original

36-item version developed by Steptoe et al (1995). Satisfactory indicators of validity and

reliability in 9 European countries imply that the Food Choice Questionnaire is a suitable tool

for exploring food choice motives across different European populations. That the factor

structure of food choice motives is similar across different countries implies that the results

have potential to be interpreted and translated into a ‘one-size-fits-all’ dietary health and food

innovation policies across European countries.

6. Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework

Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant

agreement n° 265494. Food4Me is the acronym of the project “Personalised nutrition: an

integrated analysis of opportunities and challenges” http://www.food4me.org/ . The authors

would like to thank the study group participants across Europe, and the social research

companies for recruiting them.

13

7. References

1. Ares G. & Gambaro A. (2007) Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food

choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite,

49(1), 148-158.

2. Dowd K. & Burke K.J. (2013) The influence of ethical values and food choice

motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods. Appetite, 69, 137-

144.

3. Eertmans A., Victoir A., Notelaers G., Vansant G. & Van den Bergh O. (2006) The

Food Choice Questionnaire: Factorial invariant over western urban populations? Food

Quality & Preference, 17(5), 344-352.

4. Fotopoulos C., Krystallis A., Vassallo M. & Pagiaslis A. (2009) Food Choice

Questionnaire (FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced

general food motivation model. Appetite, 52(1), 199-208.

5. Hair J., Black B., Babin B. & Anderson R. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis 7th

Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

6. Honkanen, P., Frewer, L. (2009) Russian consumers’ motives for food choice

Appetite, vol. 52, pp. 363–371.

7. Hu L. & Bentler P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:

A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

8. Januszewska R., Pieniak Z. & Verbeke W. (2011) Food choice questionnaire revisited

in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite, 57(1), 94-98.

9. Manfreda K.L., Bosniak M., Berzelak J., Haas I., Vehovar V (2008) Web surveys

versus other survey modes - A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International

Journal of Market Research, 50 (1), 79-104.

14

10. Milošević J., Žeželj I., Gorton M. & Barjolle D. (2012) Understanding the motives for

food choice in Western Balkan Countries. Appetite, 58(1), 205-214.

11. Pieniak Z., Verbeke W., Vanhonacker F., Guerrero L. & Hersleth M. (2009)

Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six

European countries. Appetite, 53(1), 101-108.

12. Pieniak Z., Perez-Cueto, F., Verbeke W (2013) Nutritional status, self-identification as

a traditional food consumer and motives for food choice in six European countries,

British Food Journal, Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 1297-1312.

13. Poínhos R., van der Lans, Ivo A., Rankin A., Fischer A.R., Bunting B., Kuznesof S.,

Stewart-Knox B., Frewer LJ (2014) Psychological Determinants of Consumer

Acceptance of Personalised Nutrition in 9 European Countries. PloS one, 9(10),

e110614.

14. Pop V (2012) Southern Euro-countries worst hit by recession. Euobserver February,

https://euobserver.com/economic/115355 https://euobserver.com/economic/115355.

15. Pula K., Parks C.D., & Ross C.F (2014) Regulatory focus and food choice motives.

Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience and familiarity, Appetite,

78C, 15-22.

16. Prescott J., Young O., O'Neill L., Yau N. & Stevens R. (2002) Motives for food

choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand.

Food Quality & Preference, 13(7-8), 489-495.

17. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in

covariance structure analysis. ASA 1988 Proceedings of the Business and Economic

Statistics, Section (308-313). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

18. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors

in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables

15

analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

19. Steenkamp J.E. & Baumgartner H. (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-

national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-107.

20. Steenkamp J.E. & Ter Hofstede F. (2002) International market segmentation: issues

and perspectives. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 185-213.

21. Steptoe A., Pollard, T.M. (1995): Development of a Measure of the Motives

Underlying the Selection of Food: the Food Choice Questionnaire, Appetite, 1995, 25,

267–284.

16

Table 1 Overview of previous validation studies of FCQ

Author/Year Countries Sample size and

composition

FCQ version and

methodology

FCQ Factor Structure Variables in the study

Pula et al (2014) USA N=408

Male 32.4%

Female 68.6%

Mean age 35.8

Adapted FCQ (additional 29

items)

Web-based survey

8- factor structure

New “impression management”

factor – opinion of others

Relation of regulatory focus and food

choice motives

Pieniak, Verbeke (2013) Belgium, France, Italy,

Norway, Poland, Spain

N=4828

Male 50.8%

Female 49.2%

Mean age 41.5

Adapted 24-item FCQ

Web-based survey

8- factor structure assumed

Mood factor excluded

Subjective health

Attitude and consumption of traditional

food

Milošević et al (2012) Croatia, Bosnia,

Macedonia, Slovenia,

Serbia, Montenegro

N=3085

Male 48.2%

Female 51.8%

Mean age 45.9

Original 36-item FCQ

Face-to-face interviews

8- factor structure

Health and Natural content

loading as a single factor

Factors underlying food choice

Clusters of consumers depending on

food choice motives

Januszewska et al (2011) Belgium, Hungary,

Romania, Philippines

N=1420

Male 36%

Female 64%

Mean age 32.3

Original 36-item FCQ

On-screen computer

application

Confirmed original 9-factor

structure

Factor invariance across four countries

Mean importance and rank for food

choice factors

Fotopoulos et al (2009) Greece N=997

Male 17.3%

Female 82.7%

Mean age 36

Original 36-item FCQ

Self-administered in

households

8- factor structure (exclusion of

ethical concern factor)

Ad-hoc measure proposed

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis –

consumer typology

Honkanen, Frewer

(2009)

Russia N=1081

Male 49.4%

Female 50.6%

Mean age 31.5

Adapted FCQ

Face-to-face interviews

8- factor structure assumed

(adding animal welfare, political

values and religion items)

Identifying consumer segments on food

choice motives

Ares, Gambaro (2007) Uruguay N=200

Male 48.5%

Female 51.5%

Mean age 32.5

Adapted 22-item FCQ

Paper-and-pencil application

7- factor structure

(Health and nutritional value;

price and convenience; Feeling

good and safety)

Food choice motives, age and gender

influence on willingness to try

functional foods

Eertmans et al (2006) Canada, Belgium, Italy N=502

Male 33%

Female 67%

Mean age 21 (students)

Original 36-item FCQ

Paper-and-pencil application

8- factor structure

Health and Natural content

loading as a single factor

Fit of Steptoe 9 factor model

Country-specific factor structuress

Prescott et al (2002) Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia,

New Zealand

N=654

Only female sample

Mean age 31

Original 36-item FCQ

On screen and paper

application

Assumed original 9-factor

structure (not checked)

Food choice factors differences by

country, age, food neophobia

17

Table 2 Sample description

Total

(N=9381)

Norway

(n=1022)

Germany

(n=1020)

Spain

(n=1025)

Greece

(n=1020)

Poland

(n=1045)

U.K.

(n=1061)

Ireland

(n=1020)

NL

(n=1020)

Portugal

(n=1148) P value

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

(%)

(%) (%)

Gender

Males

50.6 52.6 49.9 51.3 49.4 52.1 51.0

49.8

50.3 49.5 0.808

Females

49.4 47.4 50.1 48.7 50.6 47.9 49.0

50.2

49.7 50.5

Age

18-29 yrs.

22.0 20.5 18.6 19.0 24.7 24.4 23.0

23.5

20.0 23.8

<0.001* 30-39 yrs.

23.4 21.6 16.4 26.6 32.1 23.9 19.4

26.4

18.3 25.7

40-54 yrs.

34.8 30.7 40.5 35.4 37.6 28.0 36.0

32.1

38.2 34.8

55-65 yrs.

19.8 27.1 24.5 18.9 5.6 23.6 21.6

18.0

23.4 15.7

Education

Low

28.7 38.8 29.6 32.3 31.5 11.2 49.0

12.2

28.8 24.9

<0.001* Middle

38.9 31.2 52.9 43.2 35.2 61.3 15.4

37.5

35.6 37.9

High

32.4 29.9 17.5 24.5 33.3 27.5 35.6

50.4

35.6 37.2

UK = United Kingdom, NL = the Netherlands

Statistical significance for comparison between groups by Chi-square

* Denotes significance p<0.05

18

Table 3. Fit measures for measurement invariance of the Food Choice Questionnaire

Invariance Chi-square Df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Value 90% LB 90% UB

Configural 10712.57 4464 0.963 0.953 0.037 0.036 0.038 0.042

Metric a 11163.84 4673 0.961 0.953 0.037 0.036 0.037 0.045

Scalar ab

11663.12 4807 0.959 0.952 0.037 0.036 0.038 0.046

19

Table 4 Standardised factor loadings for Food Choice Questionnaire

Food Choice Motive Questionnaire Item Factor

Loading

Internal

consistency

Health

Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals 0.759

0,901 Keeps me healthy 0.737

Is nutritious 0.758

Is high in protein 0.722

Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc. 0.802

Is high in fibre and roughage 0.814

Mood

Helps me cope with stress 0.763

0,897

Helps me to cope with life 0.722

Helps me relax 0.711

Keeps me awake/alert 0.719

Cheers me up 0.683

Makes me feel good 0.752

Convenience

Is easy to prepare 0.675

0,886 Can be cooked very simply 0.692

Takes no time to prepare 0.697

Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work 0.717

Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 0.711

Sensory Appeal

Smells nice 0.758

0,821 Looks nice 0.682

Has a pleasant texture 0.749

Tastes good 0.561

Natural Content

Contains no additives 0.862

0,918 Contains natural ingredients 0.923

Contains no artificial ingredients 0.859

Price

Is not expensive 0.921

0,838 Is cheap 0.620

Is good value for money 0.783

Weight Control

Is low in calories 0.759

0,905 Helps me control my weight 0.541

Is low in fat 0.814

Familiarity

Is what I normally eat 0.782

0,781 Is well-known 0.741

Is like the food I ate when I was a child 0.628

Ethical Concern

Comes from countries I approve of politically 0.584

0,808 Has the country of origin clearly marked 0.745

Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 0.842

20

Table 5. Correlations among food choice factors

Construct Construct

Health Mood Convenience Sensory

Appeal

Natural

Content Price

Weight

Control Familiarity

Health

Mood 0.797

Convenience 0.359 0.523

Sensory Appeal 0.475 0.599 0.590

Natural Content 0.668 0.573 0.280 0.464

Price 0.248 0.312 0.464 0.395 0.289

Weight Control 0.550 0.509 0.399 0.389 0.486 0.264

Familiarity 0.452 0.485 0.495 0.489 0.406 0.294 0.595

Ethical Concern 0.539 0.499 0.281 0.406 0.649 0.237 0.488 0.475

All correlations significant at p < 0.001

21

Table 6 Internal-consistency reliabilities of food choice factors for each country

Factor Country

Norway Germany Spain Greece Poland UK Ireland Netherlands Portugal

Health 0.902 0.880 0.880 0.883 0.902 0.924 0.908 0.881 0.914

Mood 0.909 0.872 0.890 0.858 0.897 0.912 0.892 0.914 0.887

Convenience 0.896 0.873 0.900 0.886 0.887 0.897 0.873 0.903 0.883

Sensory Appeal 0.807 0.803 0.868 0.799 0.792 0.825 0.818 0.803 0.851

Natural Content 0.927 0.917 0.890 0.859 0.898 0.942 0.922 0.911 0.881

Price 0.847 0.853 0.868 0.743 0.798 0.816 0.826 0.806 0.855

Weight Control 0.765 0.928 0.923 0.904 0.918 0.924 0.915 0.910 0.897

Familiarity 0.781 0.824 0.757 0.701 0.841 0.785 0.762 0.774 0.793

Ethical Concern 0.799 0.816 0.769 0.655 0.757 0.867 0.810 0.880 0.768

22

Table 7: Mean ratings (scale 1-5) of the importance of each food choice factor by consumers in 9 countries

Total

(N=9381)

Norway

(n=1022)

Germany

(n=1020)

Spain

(n=1025)

Greece

(n=1020)

Poland

(n=1045)

UK

(n=1061)

Ireland

(n=1020)

NL

(n=1020)

Portugal

(n=1148)

H

3.49 (0.74) 3.31 (0.80) 3.61 (0.71) 3.47 (0.67) 3.68 (0.67) 3.64 (0.66) 3.33 (0.83)

3.48 (0.78)

3.30 (0.67) 3.56 (0.72)

M

3.36 (0.83) 3.10 (0.91) 3.34 (0.80) 3.43 (0.72) 3.75 (0.67) 3.65 (0.70) 3.09 (0.91)

3.29 (0.85)

3.15 (0.81) 3.44 (0.76)

C

3.44 (0.84) 3.43 (0.87) 3.56 (0.79) 3.48 (0.78) 3.63 (0.84) 3.68 (0.72) 3.21 (0.90)

3.33 (0.86)

3.28 (0.79) 3.37 (0.85)

SA

3.67 (0.71) 3.53 (0.72) 3.84 (0.69) 3.77 (0.69) 3.79 (0.67) 3.68 (0.63) 3.59 (0.76)

3.53 (0.76)

3.43 (0.64) 3.83 (0.66)

NC

3.57 (0.96) 3.20 (1.02) 3.74 (0.89) 3.63 (0.82) 4.00 (0.79) 3.89 (0.78) 3.27 (1.05)

3.40 (1.01)

3.15 (0.95) 3.80 (0.82)

P

3.72 (0.82) 3.23 (0.90) 3.83 (0.77) 3.87 (0.75) 4.03 (0.69) 3.85 (0.68) 3.50 (0.86)

3.56 (0.87)

3.55 (0.75) 4.02 (0.74)

WC

3.18 (0.99) 2.65 (0.91) 3.17 (1.02) 3.39 (0.86) 3.52 (0.88) 3.39 (0.91) 3.03 (1.06)

3.15 (1.02)

2.83 (0.94) 3.48 (0.91)

F

2.85 (0.89) 2.50 (0.88) 2.90 (0.88) 3.06 (0.80) 2.96 (0.82) 3.26 (0.80) 2.60 (0.94)

2.72 (0.91)

2.59 (0.83) 3.02 (0.83)

EC

2.91 (1.01) 2.56 (1.03) 3.06 (0.96) 3.04 (0.91) 3.35 (0.87) 3.08 (0.87) 2.67 (1.09)

2.90 (1.03)

2.41 (0.99) 3.10 (0.95)

U.K. = United Kingdom, NL = the Netherlands,

H = Health, M = Mood, C = Convenience, SA = Sensory Appeal, NC = Natural Content, P = Price,WC = Weight Control, F = Familiarity, EC = Ethical Concern

Data expressed as Mean (SD)

Significance at p < 0.05

23

Table 8 Rank order of most to least important food choice factor for each country

Norway Germany Spain Greece Poland U.K. Ireland Netherlands Portugal

Most important

Sensory

Appeal Sensory Appeal Price Price

Natural

Content

Sensory

Appeal Price Price Price

2 Convenience Price

Sensory

Appeal

Natural

Content Price Price

Sensory

Appeal

Sensory

Appeal

Sensory

Appeal

3 Health Natural Content

Natural

Content

Sensory

Appeal

Sensory

Appeal Health Health Health

Natural

Content

4 Price Health Convenience Mood Convenience

Natural

Content

Natural

Content Convenience Health

5

Natural

Content Convenience Health Health Mood Convenience Convenience

Natural

Content

Weight

Control

6 Mood Mood Mood Convenience Health Mood Mood Mood Convenience

7

Weight

Control Weight Control

Weight

Control

Weight

Control

Weight

Control

Weight

Control

Weight

Control

Weight

Control Mood

8

Ethical

Concern Ethical Concern Familiarity

Ethical

Concern Familiarity

Ethical

Concern

Ethical

Concern Familiarity

Ethical

Concern

Least important Familiarity Familiarity

Ethical

Concern Familiarity

Ethical

Concern Familiarity Familiarity

Ethical

Concern Familiarity

24

Table 9 Mean importance rankings for food choice motives in 9 countries

Factor Mean Rank

Price 1,67

Sensory Appeal 1,89

Natural Content 3,33

Health 4,00

Convenience 4,56

Mood 5,78

Weight Control 6,78

Ethical Concern 8,33

Familiarity 8,67

25